Newscoma

On the Rosalind Kurita events that have occurred this week, some things are coming to light that, as Angela at DeMarCaTionville  wrote, are confusing.

But then again it’s politics where the lines are always wobbly.

Left Wing Cracker breaks it down. Our initial reactions were much the same but he’s had a change of heart now that he’s spoken to some of the people in that room on Saturday.

My sources, some of whom sat in that room Saturday, have told me a different story. I have learned that the primary, which was decided by 19 votes, was corrupted by GOP voters who deliberately crossed over to influence the race. At least 138 of them were found by Barnes’ legal team to have voted in 8 of the last 8 GOP primaries, and a few hundred more were found to have voted in at least 4 of the last 8 GOP primaries.

Now wait, you say, we don’t have party registration, people can legally vote in whichever primary they choose, just not both at once. This is true; however, each party has the legal right to determine who may run under their banner, and if it is determined that the voting process was corrupted to the point of being “incurably uncertain”, they may void such a primary election.

And Kleinheider blogged the whole thing which you can read here.

From David Luciano from Clarksville Online analyzes what actually happened at Clarksville Online:

• That the election was certified means that the numbers on election day show that Kurita had 19 more votes than Barnes.  No one disputes this and this was not part of the election contest.
• George Barrett and the other attorneys for Tim Barnes put on evidence, including sworn affidavits and three witnesses, attesting to the fact that a precinct captain had instructed voters who stated that they wanted to vote for Tim Barnes to vote in the Republican primary.  This precinct captain was shown to have ties to Rosalind Kurita.
• It was proven that a significant higher number of voters who historically vote in Republican primaries switched over to vote in the Democratic primary in this election.  The suggestion is that Rosalind Kurita used her ties to Ron Ramsey, who had pledged openly to “help her in any way [he] could” to turn out Republican voters to vote for her in an attempt to maintain Republican leadership of the Senate.
• Rosalind Kurita violated the law by going into a polling place, along with her deputy campaign manager.  Although she stated she went into the building to “use the restroom,” Tim Barnes’s attorney produced four affidavits and a witness stating that she clearly violated the hundred-foot boundary.  It is unclear for what purpose Kurita entered the building, as this polling place is surrounded by public restrooms. One of the affiants was from a school-board candidate who was at the polling place from before the polls opened at 7:00 a.m. until after they closed at 7:00 p.m., and who got in her car and left the premises to go across the street to use the restroom several times throughout the day so that she would not violate the law.  Kurita’s attorney did not produce a single witness or affidavit defending her actions or corroborating her story.

And Jackson Baker explains the ramifications and what it all means here.

But Angela and I had the same reaction.

Uh, if true, isn’t that clearly election fraud? Does election law address this issue? In the crossover voting, it is the candidate or party’s responsibility to have poll watchers to observe the process and challenge voters at the poll. What’s the process for challenging precinct workers?

Unless I’m missing something, I’m thinking the decision to void the election would probably hold up under a legal challenge. Meanwhile, Ramsey, who had discouraged David Davis from contesting the results of his primary loss, argued that Democrats were wrong to overturn Kurita’s victory.

It is confusing. I keep trying to wrap my brain around it all.

It is a whirlwind of party politics but there is more here than meets the eye.